It was excellent, but a story's conclusion is one of the key aspects of it and in this case, in my view, there…
I see your point, but this seems clearly designed for a second season. So, technically this series hasn't "ended". Basing the quality judgement on the basis of ending, that hasn't happened, seems unfair. For the same reason, I wouldn't rate Signal low either, despite the major cliffhanger.
to be more charitable, it's probably covid that put a wrench in production. an excellent watch it could have been for a 2-season series, otherwise. hopefully they make season 2 with a few year time gap coz this the type of series that should be as popular as squid game, minus the props.
judging the show on its own merit, it's no more than an 8/10 on a good day, but 6 is a bit too harsh.
I disagree with the whole coincidences criticism. Literally every rom-com here has destiny as some form of plot device. And it makes sense, for any romantic tale. It forces characters to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t make, or nudges them in the desired direction. Realism is not something I’d criticise any standard. k-drama on.
thanks for the reply, it's always interesting to read other opinions. i’m partitioning my response up for readability.…
1. We all rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being good. then the websites like MDL average it out. we rank order what's "good" with crowdsourced objectivity. certain universals do exist.
subjectivity is another way of saying we don't know and can't prove. doesn't mean we have to find it or objective doesn't exist. that's just my take, i can't prove anything. over time, universals seem to stand out, so it's likely that there's one universal waiting to stand out eventually.
2. ohh that's a great analogy! depth is the word i think we're working with then. i do believe that this show could have done better by exploring the ideas and characters deeper with a few more episodes (like 12). its brevity was good enough for me, but it wasn't for you, it seems. it definitely could have improved with depth, we agree there. maybe then, it would have helped make the point a lot better.
3. props to JK Rowling and Chris Columbus – they were the real pioneers in world-building harry potter. it came to mind because i read/watch the story every 2-4 years and i still find something new each time.
6. what i saw in the show was a man who has had a troubled life. he fell short of his potential career, his girlfriend is much more socially adjusted in society, his college-mates are ahead of him in their career and are even getting married. meanwhile, he is barely able to scrape by and can't even get a start on his plans.
that's a terrible predicament. the particular circumstances aside, anyone in such a station in life would be depressed, clinical or not. the story tried to delve deep into this. similar to Strangers of Hell (which is a way better show, concept and execution both).
the story doesn't address "depression" like how it's treated in modern mental health circles, like a commodity or an illness. i agree with that (stepping on fiery grounds here). the mental health folks have promptly mischaracterised suffering, with a mental disorder. obviously it has led to a drastic increase in anti-depressant prescriptions, as none of them can diagnose the problem for what it is.
it's a "tough luck" problem, mixed with what looks like PTSD. not trying to play the expert but, MC clearly had PTSD from the accident before his first interview. somehow it stuck with him to create many layers of insecurity over time i.e. failure in interviews, career, relationship, life etc. depression was inevitable. a good psychologist would've unpacked that problem during the accident and started realigning MC's perceptions layer-by-layer. but not everyone with a difficult life has time or money for therapy.
my point is, depression is a title. doesn't explain much. and people who chose to quit are often depressed due to a variety of reasons. <10% cases is actually caused by a biological malfunction. life circumstances and the individual's adaptation to that play a massive role in the equation.
my larger point here was, that taking a life (even your own) is a sin across cultures for centuries, like i mentioned earlier. that idea was played within the show as well. the gravity of the sin is also high, considering it's a loss of life. this is regardless of our own value systems. even the idea of the "divine potential" is religious in most cultures.
the substance of the story is not new. it's ancient wisdom wrapped up in a modern story. the execution is likely questionable. but the point is driven home regardless, the way i saw it.
not sure how much of this ramble made sense. took a few paras to explain an esoteric thought.
7. i'm actually going to revise my rating of the show. i'll drop a point after deliberation and our discussion. given its flaws in execution it makes sense.
part 2 is better i'd say. there is some character development. again, you'd still find the execution of the substance lacking.
-----
reply anytime. i actively get emails on replies, its all good.
thanks for the reply, it's always interesting to read other opinions. i’m partitioning my response up for readability.…
Awesome. We're both inclined to get our perspective across. If we are rude, we are equally at fault. But I don't see it as a problem to address. It's a gut response for a reason, we both seem to want to figure out. I'd like to find a commonly acceptable conclusion.
I'll make a new point scale if you don't mind. Our disagreement seems deeper than the show itself.
-----
1. My understanding on Art is that it's objective and so is our interpretation. There's cohesion in the symbolic world. It's just that our interpretation differs and some people could be wrong about theirs. Our society considers it subjective as it can't be "proven" or "agreed upon". Doesn't mean it's not objective.
When we review or critique art, we essentially try to reach the "objective truth" behind it (even if unwittingly). Because of this, I see some criticism invalid & others don't, for any piece of art.
I don't have a rational argument for this. Yet. My belief is formed after observing some things over time. One example is, people are hell bent on rating movies and shows on a scale, while also calling art subjective.
We will disagree here I suppose.
2. I'd like to know how you're defining substance. I believe it had substance because the plot had a point, character had a direction and the story was cohesively told as intended. It's not a formula, but that's my best explanation. So, are you referring to the depth of the point the story is trying to make?
3. The world building is a bit weak here, I agree. That doesn't help with logical coherence. That's true for various eastern dramas from what I've seen. I gave it a pass because it didn't really break my illusion.
TBH I didn't let it break because I liked the substance (my version of it). If I can do that with a story, I give it a pass usually. Makes sense we disagree, as our watching styles differ. I personally favour the plot substance and it's overall execution.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of Harry Potter's world building? I think it's the best modern fictional story in that aspect. It checks all my boxes and the terrific world building only adds to the plot substance.
4. I brought religion only to suggest that there are common ideas from religion the show plays on. Like, heaven & hell, God and suicide as a sin. That's why most people can understand it, as those are our cultural roots, globally. Our opinion doesn't on religion doesn't seem to affect how we interpret those ideas.
5. I'll explain how I defined "living for yourself/someone else". Living means to find meaning in one's existence. I don't mean merely surviving without a choice. That's why I'm sure there's healthy and unhealthy forms of both.
Earlier, I think my larger point was living for yourself can be unhealthy and turn into narcissism (which is quite common in today's world, thanks to materialism and social media). Living for someone else can also be unhealthy if you force them to the same identity or values as yours (not that common in today's world).
I'd stick with that point only, as the show wasn't emphasising on any one style over the other. It only spoke on the character's experiences & worldview, from what I saw.
6. As for the MC and his "depression". Depression is not an isolated ailment of the mind. It's not like a brain tumour. It is (at least in 90% cases) directly linked to the person's life circumstances. That also doesn't mean that the person has no agency over it. In my personal experience, understanding what's wrong and finding ways to fix it works wonders. It's difficult, especially without a system of values (like a religion). But the alternative is what the man chose.
A life lost is not just a pain to the people who love them. It's also a loss to the world for a human's potential is lost. It's a sin for the same reason why taking a human life is a sin. They differ in degrees, but essentially it prevents the society from gaining from the human's divine potential.
The idea of human potential is a personal concept and it requires one to have certain value systems in place. So if we disagree, our value systems don't align and that's a rabbithole for another day.
7. I agree that the action part is tedious. I started taking the show seriously episode 3 onwards. Till then, all I saw was a person who didn't see the consequences of his actions until he suffered it himself. His lack of empathy was the real problem, which highlighted the selfishness for me. If he only was more empathetic, he would have understood the larger point the show is trying to make – love can justify life's suffering. The point itself is debatable, but I take Viktor Frankl's approach on that one, in my own life.
BTW I'm aware of the suicide problem in Japan, but I'm personally not living in that cultural ecosystem. Maybe I had a different lens to the show. But I don't think it would change much, if my worldview remains the same.
-----
Hope this puts my perspective in a better light. Might edit later to add more nuances. I love having these discussions with opposing ideologies. So feel free to keep it coming.
thanks for the reply, it's always interesting to read other opinions. i’m partitioning my response up for readability.…
Get ready, here's a long one coming.
-----
I lack politeness, but I'm not making a personal attack here. Focusing on the tone, will distract you from the substance. That being said, my tone is not that far off from your review of the show. I do like a spirited dialog. It makes me think beyond my limits to justify my beliefs. For that, I appreciate you.
I understand you posed your opinion. I'm criticising your opinion. Not you. Not all opinions are equal and I outlined my criticism of yours.
-----
As for your pointers:
1. We agree there, it's not philosophical. But poses interesting moral questions. How it tackles with those is a different story
2. Again, attacked your opinion, not you. Writer's primary goal is to write a good story with strong characters and meaningful progression. Logical coherence doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't break the illusion of the story.
I agree that there are more logically coherent stories out there. This show fails in that dept. But it DOESN'T affect the substance of the story. That's why finding logical fallacies is a waste of time here.
In your own example, how do you know death can manipulate it's appearance and illusion of time to suit one soul at a time? And mainly, why is it even relevant to the story? This is what they call, grasping at straws.
No, it's not a matter of personal preference and watching experience. Storytelling is not subjective.
3. And yes, most KDramas fail in the realism or logical coherence dept, just like most American shows fail in the philosophical dept. It's not a dig at any, I love both. Just an observation. In fact, their drawbacks allow them to play to their strengths a lot better.
It's still a fictional story, not an argument in court. Doesn't have to be logical, to be good.
4. If you are aware of any religion, suicide is considered a moral sin in most, except specific circumstances. living (and dying) for yourself is considered a selfish act. That's because they expect every individual to live to society's benefit. The selfishness part applies to most sins.
It's a very modern (past 30-50 yrs) interpretation of happiness that emphasizes on "living for yourself". In fact, it's not even a profound or logical argument. Just a bad one, pretending to be deep. It often is a gateway to narcissism. Anyone who makes the argument clearly lacks any understanding of any real philosophical works or real world experiences.
As for living for others – it's NOT "unhealthy at its core". It depends on the situation. It depends on your actions. Like most complex things in this world. Again, here I'll emphasise on my original point. "This show talks about the worth of suffering found through the love of other people." Not what you're implying.
Plus, within the story the main actor WAS selfish. We see his pain before his suicide. But in the coming episodes, we see all the good that he had and the pain his suicide caused. Even more so in part 2. Weighing both scales, he had options. He was just too disturbed to see beyond his own pain. I empathize with his pain, but I don't agree with his decisions at all. It was a difficult, yet selfish choice.
5. This show is not philosophical. It never pretended to tackle complex issues. It only showed them from the POV of a flawed and simple character. Calling it "faux-deep", implies it's trying to be "deep". It never tried anything beyond the purpose of it's character. Personally, I'd prefer a deeper and smarter character development. But for the story the creators are trying to tell, it's good enough. Again, what suits the story matters most.
-----
So yes, all in all, I think your opinion is ill-formed and lacks maturity. Again, not you. Your review is what I'm criticising. You could be a genius for all I care, who just didn't find this show to your taste.
But don't pretend that your politeness wasn't a guise for your own condescension. Personally, I don't care. You can be as rude as you want. I'll still focus on the substance as long as it's worth giving a thought.
your review is "faux-deep". this show is not making the case that you should live and suffer for others. instead, it talks about the worth of suffering found through the love of other people. subtle difference.
speaking of depression. suffering is necessary and inevitable. some people find it unbearable enough to quit. however, many find it unbearable to quit on their loved ones. this story makes the case of the latter, to someone who falls into the former category.
it's a strong argument. not the best one, but definitely a strong one. and there's nothing deep or philosophical about it. just plain old merit. (and yes this argument works more than you think, you might not have seen it around you).
as for the storytelling, you're finding logical fallacies for the sake of it. of course, none of this makes sense. the realism and logical coherence is never really the point in k-dramas. good if they have it, but fine if they don't. as long as the plot and character progression is strong, which works here for the premise and argument.
judging the show on its own merit, it's no more than an 8/10 on a good day, but 6 is a bit too harsh.
I disagree with the whole coincidences criticism. Literally every rom-com here has destiny as some form of plot device. And it makes sense, for any romantic tale. It forces characters to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t make, or nudges them in the desired direction. Realism is not something I’d criticise any standard. k-drama on.
subjectivity is another way of saying we don't know and can't prove. doesn't mean we have to find it or objective doesn't exist. that's just my take, i can't prove anything. over time, universals seem to stand out, so it's likely that there's one universal waiting to stand out eventually.
2. ohh that's a great analogy! depth is the word i think we're working with then. i do believe that this show could have done better by exploring the ideas and characters deeper with a few more episodes (like 12). its brevity was good enough for me, but it wasn't for you, it seems. it definitely could have improved with depth, we agree there. maybe then, it would have helped make the point a lot better.
3. props to JK Rowling and Chris Columbus – they were the real pioneers in world-building harry potter. it came to mind because i read/watch the story every 2-4 years and i still find something new each time.
6. what i saw in the show was a man who has had a troubled life. he fell short of his potential career, his girlfriend is much more socially adjusted in society, his college-mates are ahead of him in their career and are even getting married. meanwhile, he is barely able to scrape by and can't even get a start on his plans.
that's a terrible predicament. the particular circumstances aside, anyone in such a station in life would be depressed, clinical or not. the story tried to delve deep into this. similar to Strangers of Hell (which is a way better show, concept and execution both).
the story doesn't address "depression" like how it's treated in modern mental health circles, like a commodity or an illness. i agree with that (stepping on fiery grounds here). the mental health folks have promptly mischaracterised suffering, with a mental disorder. obviously it has led to a drastic increase in anti-depressant prescriptions, as none of them can diagnose the problem for what it is.
it's a "tough luck" problem, mixed with what looks like PTSD. not trying to play the expert but, MC clearly had PTSD from the accident before his first interview. somehow it stuck with him to create many layers of insecurity over time i.e. failure in interviews, career, relationship, life etc. depression was inevitable. a good psychologist would've unpacked that problem during the accident and started realigning MC's perceptions layer-by-layer. but not everyone with a difficult life has time or money for therapy.
my point is, depression is a title. doesn't explain much. and people who chose to quit are often depressed due to a variety of reasons. <10% cases is actually caused by a biological malfunction. life circumstances and the individual's adaptation to that play a massive role in the equation.
my larger point here was, that taking a life (even your own) is a sin across cultures for centuries, like i mentioned earlier. that idea was played within the show as well. the gravity of the sin is also high, considering it's a loss of life. this is regardless of our own value systems. even the idea of the "divine potential" is religious in most cultures.
the substance of the story is not new. it's ancient wisdom wrapped up in a modern story. the execution is likely questionable. but the point is driven home regardless, the way i saw it.
not sure how much of this ramble made sense. took a few paras to explain an esoteric thought.
7. i'm actually going to revise my rating of the show. i'll drop a point after deliberation and our discussion. given its flaws in execution it makes sense.
part 2 is better i'd say. there is some character development. again, you'd still find the execution of the substance lacking.
-----
reply anytime. i actively get emails on replies, its all good.
I'll make a new point scale if you don't mind. Our disagreement seems deeper than the show itself.
-----
1. My understanding on Art is that it's objective and so is our interpretation. There's cohesion in the symbolic world. It's just that our interpretation differs and some people could be wrong about theirs. Our society considers it subjective as it can't be "proven" or "agreed upon". Doesn't mean it's not objective.
When we review or critique art, we essentially try to reach the "objective truth" behind it (even if unwittingly). Because of this, I see some criticism invalid & others don't, for any piece of art.
I don't have a rational argument for this. Yet. My belief is formed after observing some things over time. One example is, people are hell bent on rating movies and shows on a scale, while also calling art subjective.
We will disagree here I suppose.
2. I'd like to know how you're defining substance. I believe it had substance because the plot had a point, character had a direction and the story was cohesively told as intended. It's not a formula, but that's my best explanation. So, are you referring to the depth of the point the story is trying to make?
3. The world building is a bit weak here, I agree. That doesn't help with logical coherence. That's true for various eastern dramas from what I've seen. I gave it a pass because it didn't really break my illusion.
TBH I didn't let it break because I liked the substance (my version of it). If I can do that with a story, I give it a pass usually. Makes sense we disagree, as our watching styles differ. I personally favour the plot substance and it's overall execution.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of Harry Potter's world building? I think it's the best modern fictional story in that aspect. It checks all my boxes and the terrific world building only adds to the plot substance.
4. I brought religion only to suggest that there are common ideas from religion the show plays on. Like, heaven & hell, God and suicide as a sin. That's why most people can understand it, as those are our cultural roots, globally. Our opinion doesn't on religion doesn't seem to affect how we interpret those ideas.
5. I'll explain how I defined "living for yourself/someone else". Living means to find meaning in one's existence. I don't mean merely surviving without a choice. That's why I'm sure there's healthy and unhealthy forms of both.
Earlier, I think my larger point was living for yourself can be unhealthy and turn into narcissism (which is quite common in today's world, thanks to materialism and social media). Living for someone else can also be unhealthy if you force them to the same identity or values as yours (not that common in today's world).
I'd stick with that point only, as the show wasn't emphasising on any one style over the other. It only spoke on the character's experiences & worldview, from what I saw.
6. As for the MC and his "depression". Depression is not an isolated ailment of the mind. It's not like a brain tumour. It is (at least in 90% cases) directly linked to the person's life circumstances. That also doesn't mean that the person has no agency over it. In my personal experience, understanding what's wrong and finding ways to fix it works wonders. It's difficult, especially without a system of values (like a religion). But the alternative is what the man chose.
A life lost is not just a pain to the people who love them. It's also a loss to the world for a human's potential is lost. It's a sin for the same reason why taking a human life is a sin. They differ in degrees, but essentially it prevents the society from gaining from the human's divine potential.
The idea of human potential is a personal concept and it requires one to have certain value systems in place. So if we disagree, our value systems don't align and that's a rabbithole for another day.
7. I agree that the action part is tedious. I started taking the show seriously episode 3 onwards. Till then, all I saw was a person who didn't see the consequences of his actions until he suffered it himself. His lack of empathy was the real problem, which highlighted the selfishness for me. If he only was more empathetic, he would have understood the larger point the show is trying to make – love can justify life's suffering. The point itself is debatable, but I take Viktor Frankl's approach on that one, in my own life.
BTW I'm aware of the suicide problem in Japan, but I'm personally not living in that cultural ecosystem. Maybe I had a different lens to the show. But I don't think it would change much, if my worldview remains the same.
-----
Hope this puts my perspective in a better light. Might edit later to add more nuances. I love having these discussions with opposing ideologies. So feel free to keep it coming.
:)
-----
I lack politeness, but I'm not making a personal attack here. Focusing on the tone, will distract you from the substance. That being said, my tone is not that far off from your review of the show. I do like a spirited dialog. It makes me think beyond my limits to justify my beliefs. For that, I appreciate you.
I understand you posed your opinion. I'm criticising your opinion. Not you. Not all opinions are equal and I outlined my criticism of yours.
-----
As for your pointers:
1. We agree there, it's not philosophical. But poses interesting moral questions. How it tackles with those is a different story
2. Again, attacked your opinion, not you. Writer's primary goal is to write a good story with strong characters and meaningful progression. Logical coherence doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't break the illusion of the story.
I agree that there are more logically coherent stories out there. This show fails in that dept. But it DOESN'T affect the substance of the story. That's why finding logical fallacies is a waste of time here.
In your own example, how do you know death can manipulate it's appearance and illusion of time to suit one soul at a time? And mainly, why is it even relevant to the story? This is what they call, grasping at straws.
No, it's not a matter of personal preference and watching experience. Storytelling is not subjective.
3. And yes, most KDramas fail in the realism or logical coherence dept, just like most American shows fail in the philosophical dept. It's not a dig at any, I love both. Just an observation. In fact, their drawbacks allow them to play to their strengths a lot better.
It's still a fictional story, not an argument in court. Doesn't have to be logical, to be good.
4. If you are aware of any religion, suicide is considered a moral sin in most, except specific circumstances. living (and dying) for yourself is considered a selfish act. That's because they expect every individual to live to society's benefit. The selfishness part applies to most sins.
It's a very modern (past 30-50 yrs) interpretation of happiness that emphasizes on "living for yourself". In fact, it's not even a profound or logical argument. Just a bad one, pretending to be deep. It often is a gateway to narcissism. Anyone who makes the argument clearly lacks any understanding of any real philosophical works or real world experiences.
As for living for others – it's NOT "unhealthy at its core". It depends on the situation. It depends on your actions. Like most complex things in this world. Again, here I'll emphasise on my original point. "This show talks about the worth of suffering found through the love of other people." Not what you're implying.
Plus, within the story the main actor WAS selfish. We see his pain before his suicide. But in the coming episodes, we see all the good that he had and the pain his suicide caused. Even more so in part 2. Weighing both scales, he had options. He was just too disturbed to see beyond his own pain. I empathize with his pain, but I don't agree with his decisions at all. It was a difficult, yet selfish choice.
5. This show is not philosophical. It never pretended to tackle complex issues. It only showed them from the POV of a flawed and simple character. Calling it "faux-deep", implies it's trying to be "deep". It never tried anything beyond the purpose of it's character. Personally, I'd prefer a deeper and smarter character development. But for the story the creators are trying to tell, it's good enough. Again, what suits the story matters most.
-----
So yes, all in all, I think your opinion is ill-formed and lacks maturity. Again, not you. Your review is what I'm criticising. You could be a genius for all I care, who just didn't find this show to your taste.
But don't pretend that your politeness wasn't a guise for your own condescension. Personally, I don't care. You can be as rude as you want. I'll still focus on the substance as long as it's worth giving a thought.
Thanks for reading till here, if you did.
speaking of depression. suffering is necessary and inevitable. some people find it unbearable enough to quit. however, many find it unbearable to quit on their loved ones. this story makes the case of the latter, to someone who falls into the former category.
it's a strong argument. not the best one, but definitely a strong one. and there's nothing deep or philosophical about it. just plain old merit. (and yes this argument works more than you think, you might not have seen it around you).
as for the storytelling, you're finding logical fallacies for the sake of it. of course, none of this makes sense. the realism and logical coherence is never really the point in k-dramas. good if they have it, but fine if they don't. as long as the plot and character progression is strong, which works here for the premise and argument.